Scdrc Court April 2014 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Vipan Kumar and Others Vs. Ashok Kumar
Court: Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Shimla
Decided on: Apr-01-2014
Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President (Oral): 1. Complainants have approached this Commission, by means of the present complaint, under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, seeking directions to the opposite party; "a) to refund a sum of Rs.21,61,560/-, with interest at the rate of 12% per annum, which amount of money, he has allegedly received in excess of the work executed by him; b) to pay Rs.18.00 lacs, as compensation for loss of income; c) to pay Rs.5.00 lacs, on account of compensation for mental torture, harassment; and d) to pay a sum of Rs.55,000/- on account of litigation expenses." 2. Complainants mother late Asha Rani and her two sons, Vipan Kumar and Ripan Kumar, complainants No.1 and 2, wanted to set up a marriage palace in the periphery of Una town. They submitted project report, Annexure C- 7, to Kangra Cooperative Primary Agriculture Rural Development Bank Ltd., Dharamshala, for seeking a loan. Loan was sanctioned in their favour. Thereafter they approac...
Jose Cristovam Pinto and Others Vs. K.P. Singh Alias
Court: Goa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Panaji
Decided on: Apr-01-2014
N.A. Britto, President: 1. Opposite Parties in C.C. No.25/10 have filed this appeal, and, it is directed against order dated 26/07/2013 of the Lr. North Goa District Forum at Porvorim by which the complaint filed by the Complainant on `17/03/2010 has been allowed. 2. The parties to this appeal are being referred to in the names as they appear in the cause title of the said complaint. 3. The case of the Complainant, in brief, is that the OP Nos. 1 and 2 are the owners of the property admeasuring 1738 sq.mts., surveyed under chalta no.14 of the P.T. sheet No.81 of Panaji City Survey, and, OP No.3 entered into an agreement on 15/06/1998 with the said owners to develop the said property and construct a multi storeyed building therein known as `Pinto Complex. 4. The OP No.4 is the proprietor of OP No.3, a builder, and also appears to be the son of OP Nos. 1 and 2 5. By agreement dated 22/03/2002 executed by the OPs with the Complainant, the Complainant agreed to purchase from the OPs office...
Reliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd., Represented by Its Managing Director ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Apr-01-2014
Oral Order: (GopalaKrishna Tamada, President) This appeal is directed against the order in C.C.No.118/2012 dated 21-11-2012 on the file of District Forum, Srikakulam whereby the complaint filed by the respondent herein was allowed. The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainants husband, Lakhinana Kantha Rao, during his life time insured his life under Policy bearing No.19334665 which is a unit linked insurance policy and the mode of payment of premium is annual i.e. Rs.14,308/- for Rs.1,50,000/- commencing from 23-9-2011. The insured died on 17-2-2012 and the complainant being the nominee intimated the death to opposite party No.3 and she submitted the claim along with relevant records on 28-3-2012. Thereafter the opposite parties repudiated the policy by letter dated 15-6-2012 stating that the insured had pre-existing health problem of Carcinoma Tongue since 25-3-2011 and suppressed the said fact and obtained the policy. Alleging that her husband did not suppress any mater...
Sanjay Sidhakar Joshi Vs. Dr. Hemant Murkey and Another
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Nagpur
Decided on: Apr-01-2014
B.A. Shaikh, Presiding Judicial Member: 1. This appeal is preferred against the order dated 11/07/2008 passed in Consumer Complaint bearing CC No.188/2007 by the District Forum,Amravati by which the complaint has been dismissed. 2. The case of the complainant, as set out in the complaint, in brief is that he is serving in police department and he resides at Amravati. The Opposite Party (for short OP) No.1 is a medical practitioner and he runs hospital in the name as œMurke Hospital? at Amravati. The OP No.2 is also a medical practitioner and he also runs hospital at Amravati. The complainant has two issues and Sarthak is one of his minor son. Police department entered into an agreement with OP No.1 to provide medical services to the police employees and their dependents under a scheme called as œMaharashtra Police Kutumba Arogya Yojna? hereinafter called as œFamily Health Care Plan?. The OP No.1 is liable to provide free medical services to police employees and their ...
National Insurance Company Limited Vs. M/S. Mrh Associates and Another
Court: Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC UT Chandigarh
Decided on: Apr-01-2014
Sham Sunder (Retd.), President: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 17.12.2013, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which, it accepted the complaint, filed by the complainant (now respondent No.1), and directed Opposite Party No.1 (now appellant), as under:- œIn the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Party No.1 is found deficient in giving proper service to the complainant. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Party No.1, and the same is allowed, qua it and the Complainant not being a consumer qua Opposite Party No.2, the present complaint deserves dismissal against it. The Opposite Party No.1 is directed to:- [a] To settle the claim of the Complainant on non-standard basis on amount assessed by the Surveyor in his report (Annexure R-9); [b] To pay Rs.10,000/- on account o...
Rajan Singla Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited and Another
Court: Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC UT Chandigarh
Decided on: Apr-01-2014
Sham Sunder (Retd.), President: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 18.02.2014, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), vide which, it dismissed Consumer Complaint No.619 of 2013, in default of appearance of the complainant (now appellant). 2. The facts, in brief, are that the complainant, being the owner of car, bearing registration No.PB-11-AR-5881, got the same insured, from the Opposite Parties, for the Insured Declared Value, to the tune of Rs.6,28,166/-, on payment of premium, to the tune of Rs.14,286/-, valid for the period from 15.07.2010 to 14.07.2011. According to the complainant, on 30.06.2011, one Mr. Rajinder Garg, was driving the said car, from Kumar Hatti to Saproon, District Solan, when near Pracheen Shiv Temple, it (car) went out of order, as a result whereof, he parked the same, on extreme left side of the road, and came to his residence. On the morning of 01.0...
Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs. Shalini Gupta
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-01-2014
R.C. Chavan, President: [1] This appeal is directed against the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Pune directing appellant/Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs.10 lakhs with interest @ 9% p.a. from 08/03/2010 to the complainant. Facts which are material for deciding this appeal are as under:- Appellant issued a policy of insurance to the complainants husband, which was valid for a period from 04/05/2009 till 03/05/2010. On 21/11/2009, the complainants husband i.e. insured met with his death in a railway accident. The complainant informed the Insurance Company and complied with the requisition dated 25/11/2009 issued by the appellant/Insurance Company and sent a Claim form on 11/02/2010. By letter dated 08/03/2010, appellant Company repudiated the claim stating that the insured was crossing the railway track near Chembur Railway station and was hit by a train leading to his death, and that trespassing on the railway track is not legal and it also contribute...
Sunder Lal Vs. Indian Farmers Fertilizer Co-operative Limited (iffco) ...
Court: Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Panchkula
Decided on: Apr-01-2014
Nawab Singh, President (ORAL): 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated January 2nd, 2014, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short District Forum), Fatehabad, whereby complaint filed by Sunder Lal-complainant was dismissed. 2. Sunder Lal-complainant (appellant herein) purchased 15 Kgs Guar Seed of HG-563 variety on May 30th, 2012 vide Cash Memo No.14 (Exhibit C-5) for Rs.600/- from Indian Farmers Fertilizer Co-Operative Limited-respondents (opposite parties). He sowed the seed in four acres of land and irrigated the same as per the instructions of the respondents-opposite parties. When the crop was at vegetative stage, it was found that the seed supplied to him was defective having been mixed with some other variety. The appellant-complainant suffered loss of his crop as the seed was not pure. 3. The appellant-complainant approached the respondents to apprise the loss suffered by him. He also approached the Sub Divisional Agriculture Officer Subject Ma...
Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd and Another Vs. SachIn Sa ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Nagpur
Decided on: Apr-01-2014
B.A. Shaikh, Presiding Member: 1. This appeal is preferred against the order dated 21/06/2007 passed in Consumer Complaint bearing CC No. 68/2006 by the District Consumer Forum, Amravati by which the complaint has been partly allowed. 2. The case of the complainants as set out in the complaint in brief is that he purchased tractor from the O.P. (for short O.P.) No.2 by paying it cash of Rs.1,15,000/- and by obtaining loan of Rs.2,25,000/- from the O.P. No.1- Finance Company. The said loan was to be repaid in installments as described in the complaint. The complainant paid the said installments. The last full and final payment of Rs.69,500/- was made by the complainant to O.P. No.1 on 24/01/2005. However, thereafter the O.P. No.2 did not issue œNo Objection Certificate? along with registration particulars of that tractor. The O.P.No.2 demanded excess amount of Rs.29,176/- towards interest over delayed payment which is not legal. Therefore, the complainant filed the complaint and p...
U.K. Infrastructure Through Its Chairman and Others Vs. Ashok Kumar
Court: Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC UT Chandigarh
Decided on: Apr-01-2014
Sham Sunder (Retd.), President: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 11.02.2014, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which, it accepted the complaint, filed by the complainant (now respondent), and directed the Opposite Parties (now appellants), as under:- œIn view of the above discussion, the present complaint deserves to succeed. The same is accordingly allowed and the opposite parties are directed as under:- i) To refund the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @9% per annum from the date of deposit till payment; ii) To pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment; iii) To pay Rs.10,000/- as costs of litigation. This order be complied with by the opposite parties, within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amounts at Sr. No.(i) and (ii) above shall carry interest @18% per an...
- ‹ Prev
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 35
- Next ›
- Last »